House Democrats poised to stall college sports pay bill in lame-duck session
The Protect College Sports Act, which passed the Senate 77-22, faces a hostile floor as the new majority questions the need for federal intervention in athlete compensation.
By Diego Mendoza ·
College athletes across the country will face continued uncertainty over their pay and job protections when the House convenes for its lame-duck session on Monday. The chamber will vote on the Protect College Sports Act, legislation that already cleared the Senate by a 77-22 margin last month but now faces a steep climb in a newly empowered Democratic majority.
Democrats, who have secured at least 247 seats with counting still underway, generally oppose the bill. The legislation standardizes how athletes are paid and creates specific protections for Olympic sports, provisions that have historically drawn criticism from player advocates. The incoming majority must decide whether to pass the measure or let it stall, a choice that directly impacts the financial stability of hundreds of Division I programs.
Brandon Copeland, executive director of Athletes.org, noted that college sports policy was not a primary driver for voters. He stated that he does not believe anyone voted for a candidate specifically because of their stance on the industry, suggesting that the election results may not guarantee a swift passage of the bill.
Supporters, including the NCAA, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and President Donald Trump, argue that the Senate vote demonstrated a rare bipartisan consensus. Tim Buckley, the NCAA's senior vice president of external affairs, warned that inaction would prevent these student-athlete benefits from becoming federal law. He said the association looks forward to working with the House to finalize the process.
Critics, however, point to structural flaws in the draft. The National College Players Association argues the bill fails to protect Olympic and women's sports as intended. The group found that approximately 70% of Division I athletic departments fall below the $50 million revenue threshold required to maintain current athlete numbers in non-revenue sports. Additionally, the bill contains sunset clauses that allow rules to expire after four or nine years.
Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association, expressed hope that the election would tank the bill, citing a lack of time to refine it into a fair framework. In contrast, Sarah Hirshland, CEO of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, defended the compromise. She acknowledged the bill is not perfect but called it the best vehicle available to make progress in protecting Paralympic and Olympic sports.
Major conferences like the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference are preparing for both scenarios. Last month, the Big Ten adopted spending guidelines that mirror the bill's numbers, a move that drew immediate legal challenges. If Congress does not act, these groups plan to implement conference-led governance to control costs. They prefer a federal mandate to end the current bidding war for talented athletes, but they are ready to set their own rules if Washington remains silent.
